A comparison of leadership theories in an organizational environment

Healthcare/ Leadership

CHAPTER 8 Leadership Models in Practice

© artemisphoto/ShutterStock, Inc.

There are risks and costs to a program of action. But they are far less than the long-range risks and costs of comfortable inaction.

John F. Kennedy, May 12, 1961

This chapter presents practical models for both students of leadership and mature practitioners of the art and science of leadership to apply to their personal leadership practice. Two evolving models and one established model of leadership are described here; they should assist leaders in honing their personal leadership practice. These models are the omnibus leadership model, the dynamic culture leadership model, and the reframing organizations leadership and management model. These models are prescriptive in that they provide a strategy for success and guidelines for practical implementation. Other differing, yet contemporary, leadership models are also presented from Lynn, Yukl, Hargrove, and Glidewell. An analysis and comparison of four of the models presented in this chapter is included as an example of model comparison and evaluation. Health leaders should consider the constructs of these models and think about how they might apply them in complex health organizational environments. The chapter concludes with a list of recommended leadership measurement tools with which to conduct leader evaluations.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

· 1. Outline the constructs and processes of at least two contemporary leadership models presented in this chapter, and identify the prescriptive mechanisms of those models.

· 2. Distinguish at least two of the contemporary leadership models in this chapter from one other leadership theory or model from the situational leadership thought phase.

· 3. Apply at least one contemporary leadership model from this chapter to a real or hypothesized health leadership situation or case, and explain the rationale for your decisions, actions, and behaviors.

· 4. Analyze and illustrate the contemporary leadership models’ constructs that enable a health leader to develop, modify, or revise the organizational culture in a health enterprise.

· 5. Create a leadership model—either simple or complex—for your own use in health organizations, and relate your model to constructs found in models from this chapter and other constructs from other theories and models.

· 6. Compare and contrast two or more contemporary leadership models.

THE OMNIBUS LEADERSHIP MODEL 1

In 1905, the world-famous Carnegie Museum of Natural History placed the bones of a prized Apatosaurus on review. The bones remained on display until 1992, when the fossil was reexamined by a different team of paleontologists. These late-century paleontologists noticed that the dinosaur had been assembled incorrectly, and that the wrong head had been placed on the dinosaur almost 90 years earlier. 2 Over the course of the twentieth century, hundreds (perhaps thousands) of scholars and academics had viewed the bones and admired the symmetry and perfection of the fossil—never noticing the 90-year-old error the original paleontologists had made. No one ever questioned whether the fossil has been assembled incorrectly, or whether this world-famous museum had made an error. On the contrary, because the museum itself stood as an authoritarian benchmark of quality and distinction, it is quite possible that many other museums, paleontologists, and scholars had used this fossil as a standard from which other scholarly ventures were based. It was a profound error, and one that took nearly three generations of scholars to correct.

Given the weighty nature of this mistake, and the overall humor in placing a wrong head on a skeleton, your authors would like to use this example as a starting point from which to explore the possibility that the study of leadership is likewise suffering from an ancient error in construction. We propose that (in some cases) the study of leadership has become a calculus formula that has become memorized, but never derived. By this we mean that for generations younger scholars have been presented with information that is suggested to be true, but may more likely be a strongly supported opinion.

It has been suggested that there are as many methods to define leadership as there are ways to measure it. From a research perspective, this flexibility is often very beneficial, because the purpose of research is to look at things in increasing levels of complexity, with the ultimate goal of discerning intricate parts of the puzzle. But is it possible that, in the literature of leadership theory, the level of complexities has become so intricate that the larger picture is no longer visible? A review of leadership theory suggests the possibility that the answer to this question is “yes.”

Furthermore, is it possible that the study of leadership has suffered from theory creep? The original conception of creep is attributed to former U.S. Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger, who suggested that creep is the absence of a uniform vision, and who noted that this condition results in constant change. 3 The end product of creep results in people solving problems that have no relationship to the original project or process at all. In other words, the wrong fight is fought.

The study of leadership theory may have also suffered from theoretical creep. A review of leadership theories in the twentieth century suggests leadership studies have shifted from the broad and wide-ranging trait and “great man” theories to discriminate research efforts that reflect more of an application of unit models of decision making or satisfaction, rather than theory. Supporting this premise, some authors have suggested the problem with organizational theories is that the wrong unit of analysis is applied to inappropriate situations. Furthermore, many authors suggest previous studies may not be looking at leadership issues, but rather at evaluating supervisory and interpersonal characteristics. 4 – 9

Early Precedents for Misapplied Theories

Early anthropological and scientific literature is regularly flawed and full of assumptions and opinions often presumed to be fact until new insights came to light. A whimsical example is the “flat earth theory,” which was largely abandoned after the invention of the telescope and the circumnavigation of the globe by early mariners. Other scientific research is less amusing and could produce harmful consequences.

For example, in the early 1900s through the 1930s, the practice of eugenics was accepted in the United States. An estimated 60,000 people were sterilized when researchers of the era suggested persons with disabilities were a menace to society and could not contribute to humanity. 10 , 11

Thirty-five states enforced eugenics-related laws, and the practice was endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1927 Buck v. Bell decision, in which Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes declared that “three generations of imbeciles are enough.” 12 Later, in the early 1940s, faulty research by the U.S. Army Air Corps supported previous research and literature that suggested African Americans were incapable of flying modern aircraft due to intelligence gaps as compared to their white counterparts. 13

Situations in which new scientific theories replace older ones are constantly documented in the literature. Paleontologist Jack Horner of the Museum of the Rockies posits that Tyrannosaurus Rex (“tyrant lizard king”) could not have been a predator. Horner traced back the literature behind the naming of T-Rex by its original discoverer, Henry Osborne, in 1905. Osborne speculated that T-Rex’s big teeth and head must have been used in a predatory capacity. This assumption became a widely accepted, often cited, and frequently quoted part of paleontology literature for almost a century. Almost 100 years after the discovery, however, new scientific analysis of the skull and teeth suggested that T-Rex was actually a scavenger. 14

The organizational literature is likewise peppered with misnomers and reevaluated ideas. Weber’s “Protestant work ethic” (PWE) posited that “work gives meaning to life.” 15 This theory gained some popular support in early organizational literature, but examination of the literature by later scholars failed to find support for the PWE theory in contemporary literature. As early as 1990, Peter Drucker suggested that society is in need of many new models in leadership and management. “[The] old theories are feeling the weight of increasing complexities,” 16 he said.

In respect to this effort, earlier attempts to develop a uniform framework for effective leadership analysis have translated into significant academic challenges for researchers in this field. Although the term leadership is relatively new to the English language, the idea of leadership has existed for thousands of years. Researchers well recognize that certain individuals stand out from others in a group setting and ultimately direct the group to achieve a specific goal. These individuals have, for centuries, been recognized as leaders. Some such leaders may be associated with business or the military, whereas others become prominent politicians or social activists. Whatever the environmental setting may be, one fact is clear: There is little consensus on exactly what leadership is and which processes create an effective leader. 17

Leadership is one of the most widely debated and broadly defined micro-organization theories within the realm of organizational behavior. As a result, the discussion of leadership and leaders has transcended traditional boundaries and is often incorrectly extended to describe behavior and phenomena associated with managers, supervisors, coaches, educators, celebrities, political representatives, inspirational personnel, sports figures, and subject-matter experts. Despite the well-respected body of literature that distinctly separates leadership from other identifiers, the “leadership” label continues to be used to describe a plethora of activity in society. 18 The overuse and misuse of the term leader makes it difficult to study the concept of leadership and differentiate the concept of “leaders” from managers, supervisors, and popular personality figures.

Because of this misapplication, the terms leader and leadership have dominated fashionable connotations associated with nonequivalent positions, resulting in a popularly accepted—though largely incorrect—hierarchy. According to this “pecking order,” being a leader is better than being just a manager, supervisor, or subject-matter expert. Being designated as a leader rather than a manager (or something else) results in an artificial perception of status, which translates into a “feel good” perception for the individual. Perhaps this notion is in part associated with competition for the best employees and other cultural changes that have occurred within society in the last century. A review of classified ads in The Washington Post for senior-level healthcare personnel will turn up few vacancies for “business managers”—but will likely indicate that several positions for “industry leaders” are available.

As a result of these applications, leadership-, management-, and supervisory-related terms have essentially become synonymous within the literature and society. Consequently, leadership constructs are no longer perceived as distinct and mutually exclusive. A review of the literature suggests there is no single construct unique to leadership theory. Researchers working within the leadership theory field are often forced to borrow from the abundance of micro-organizational theories in the discipline to explain phenomena associated with leadership theory.

In response to these propositions, a new model of leadership, originally developed by Coppola at the Army Medical Department Center and School, Academy of Health Sciences, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, is offered here for purposes of discussion, thought, and reflection. 19 This model takes into account constructs and concepts that many traditional models of leadership do not include. These items include higher order, environment, and individual culture composite elements.

Reviewing Leadership as a New Problem

The study of traditional leadership theory does not always study leadership itself, but rather the outcomes of leaders and the antecedent factors that constitute management practices. Several weaknesses are associated with the traditional leadership models that have been previously published. However, all models have potential for improvement. To begin with, few of the models attempt to define leadership theory before building models that explain the phenomena associated with it. For example, Yukl has suggested that there are at least seven (and perhaps many more) different definitions of leadership that can be found within the literature. 20 – 22 On which of the various definitions of leadership are the models based when they are tested? Without a uniform definition of leadership, and without agreement on measures and variables, outcomes are most certainly interpreted broadly.

The Euclidean management philosophies of the 1970s and 1980s, in which many of these leadership models have their roots, have since been replaced with more interactive, matrix-like, collaborative, and participatory-based models. These models were introduced to accommodate the paradigm shift in employee expectations, generational changes, and societal expectations (such as more women in the workforce) that has occurred in the last two to four decades. As a result, the application and study of leadership models have not kept pace with this paradigm shift in its totality.

Yukl’s research exposes a wide variety of ideas on what constitutes leadership. The existing literature on leadership theory also promotes this definitional gap. Researchers have proposed a variety of theories: trait-based theories, transformational theories, contingency theories, and normative theories. The strength of these theoretical approaches lies in the fact that scholars generally accept them as reliable frameworks for evaluating distinct aspects of leadership. In reality, significant weaknesses exist because no one model can successfully explain all past behavior or predict all future behavior in an omnibus fashion. This differs from the study of constructs and measures in other academic fields. For example, scholars in the health field have regarded Donabedian’s model of healthcare quality as a panacea for establishing a basis for any discussion of the subject in any health organization. Similarly, Mintzberg’s typology for organizational analysis is a staple for deconstructing organizational hierarchal elements into manageable groups for efficiency and performance analysis. 23 , 24

Brief Overview of Theory

In the mid-1980s, Samuel Bacharach, building on the earlier works of Popper, Kerlinger, and Duban, developed criteria for evaluating theory that has become the benchmark for modern theoretical assessment in organizational literature. 25 – 28 According to Bacharach, a theory is a statement of relationships among concepts within a set of boundary assumptions and constructs. In this system of constructs and variables, the constructs are related to one another by propositions and the variables are related to one another by hypotheses. As a result, theory is a linguistic device used to organize a complex empirical world.

Similarly, Kerlinger noted that the essence of hypothesis testing is to test the relationship expressed by the variables in the hypotheses, rather than to test the individual variables themselves. Unfortunately, a majority of the leadership literature is centered on testing unit variables such as task accomplishment and satisfaction rather than more broadly defined leadership constructs. Moreover, as discussed previously, the overwhelming majority of leadership studies focus primarily on the outcomes of management and not leadership. These traditions suggest that modern-day thinkers must redirect their efforts and concentrate on defining and testing leadership as a construct.

The New Model

Albert Einstein once said, “Nearly every great advance in science arises from a crisis in the old theory, through an endeavor to find a way out of the difficulties created; we must examine old ideas, old theories, although they belong to the past, for this is the only way to understand the importance of the new ones and the extent of their validity.” 29 As suggested, Ledlow and Coppola defined leadership as the ability to assess, develop, maintain, and change organizational culture and strategic systems to optimally meet the needs and expectations of the external environment by moral means. With this definition in mind, some alternatives and suggestions for studying leadership from a theoretical perspective are offered here.

In response to the problems inherent in traditional leadership theory outlined, we posit a series of propositions using the framework developed by Coppola, Kerlinger, Whetten, and Wittgenstein, 30 - 33 which stipulates that propositions, or statements of opinion based on related facts, are true when describing relationships. The proposition technique allows relevant prose to coalesce around various arguments offered in the literature that lack empirical support. Following this analysis, semantic differential is used to place ideas of similar meaning into categories. The creation of these categories then allows for the presentation of simple sentences describing concepts. These concepts are then used as valid foundations for continuing the research stream. Although the statements may not always be exact, they are offered as reliable and trustworthy until additional research suggests otherwise, or more definitive evidence of disconfirmation is provided. Research historically suggests that empirical evidence most often flows from the advancements of theory, qualitative analysis, and supposition. 34

The proposed “omnibus leadership model,” discussed later in this chapter, borrows from previous literature in the field and provides a different aperture for evaluating leaders and leadership theory based on the following propositions:

· Proposition 1: Leadership theory has become analogous to a calculus formula that is memorized, but not derived.

In the past, leadership theories and models have followed a pattern similar to that of earlier defunct theories such as the “flat earth” theory and the theory of eugenics—namely, scholars and students memorized the theories and models and passed them on to future generations without ever studying the phenomena firsthand. Likewise, few students have ever done the mathematical calculations to derive the degrees associated with a circle and triangle; rather, they accept the notion that a circle is 360 degrees and the angles within a triangle add up to 180 degrees. We do not dispute these mathematical facts, but do take pause at the widespread acceptance without validation of some of the early leadership literature.

· Proposition 2: Early models of leadership theory applied a managerial framework to the study of leadership that failed to correctly differentiate other disciplines from leadership.

Many of the early models of leadership looked at managerial outcomes and not the factors (i.e., constructs) influencing those outcomes for leadership.

· Proposition 3: It is necessary to reevaluate leadership models to discern whether incorrect units of analyses or misapplied variables have been extended to the explanation of phenomena associated with leadership theory.

Although we do not suggest that all leader models are inherently incorrect or flawed, we do suggest that—similar to other theoretical disciplines that have acknowledged evolution in their discipline—the study of leadership is more a study of the validation of outcomes attributed to the leader or leadership team than forecasted issues coupled with actions or style selection. This requires prospective and retrospective assessment.

· Proposition 4: The tautology of the terms leadership and leader have allowed for the unarrested use and application of the theory in literature.

The lack of a clear definition of leadership, combined with the lack of a clear understanding of what constitutes the construct of leadership, results in outcomes that do not maximize validity, reliability, and the ability to generalize across situations.

· Proposition 5: Leadership theory lacks universally defined constructs and variables.

Dissimilar to the study of quality in health care, where Donabedian’s framework has become a benchmark with which to frame results, or the study of evolution, where Darwin’s Theory of Evolution dominates the landscape, scholars in the management sciences lack a clear signpost for acuity in the leadership field for study. This lack of grounding decreases consistency. In essence, leadership remains in a perpetual “theory building” cycle.

· Proposition 6: Leadership theory lacks a defined conceptual model.

No one conceptual model stands out as a panacea for leadership study. This is dissimilar to the proposition offered by the U.S. Constitution, which clearly states that U.S. citizens have the “right to bear arms.”

· Proposition 7: Traditional leadership theories do not differentiate between leadership and dictatorship.

Leaders who are self-serving, and who also have an agenda for harm and misery, are often labeled as “leaders” because society is unable to place them into any other designation when considering traditional leadership models. Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden are only two examples; they are labeled “leaders” by default. Interestingly, the preponderance of the literature associated with Benito Mussolini describes the Italian ruler as “the Italian dictator” and not as a leader—which is unique in the literature of historical despots.

Why a New Model?

When applying traditional leadership models, Adolf Hitler might be described as an effective leader, or at least as someone who demonstrated leadership skills by successfully rebuilding Germany after World War I. A retrospective application of path–goal leadership theory might also justify this position. Without question, Hitler initially inspired hundreds of thousands of followers to join his fascist movement in both Europe and the United States in the late 1930s. A retrospective application of transformational leadership theory might help explain Hitler’s success in this regard. Nevertheless, to refer to Hitler as a leader is insulting to the profession of leadership. Hitler is not thought of as a highly regarded leader in the study of leadership theory today; he is considered, at best, to have been a despot and a dictator. Certainly, a model must be created that allows for the differentiation of leadership and dictatorship.

To test this proposition, 170 commissioned U.S. military officers were asked to participate in a leadership test at Fort Sam Houston, Texas, over the period 2004–2006. The test was designed to test an individual’s perception of the definition of leadership based on a narrative. This narrative was read aloud to a class of graduate students (who were also Army, Navy, Air Force, or Coast Guard officers) in advance, so the entire class heard the narrative at the same time. After the narrative was read, the officers were asked to turn over a piece of paper that had been placed on their desk, and circle the answer choice they thought was most representative of the narrative.

Each class was divided in half so that the narrative was the same. One side of the class had a picture of Adolf Hitler on top of the page; the other side had a picture of Martin Luther King, Jr., on the top of the page. The test was designed to see if the picture of a well-known and accepted leadership figure such as Martin Luther King, Jr., would cause the test takers to support the leadership narrative, whereas the picture of Adolf Hitler would bias the results. The entire one-page test is presented here (including the two pictures used— Figures 8-1 and 8-2 ), and the test results appear in Table 8-1 .

METHODOLOGY

One side of the room received the following narrative, with a picture of Adolf Hitler appearing on the top of the page. The other side of the room received the same narrative, with a picture of Martin Luther King, Jr., appearing at the top of the page. Neither side of the class knew that the other side was looking at a different picture.

FIGURE 8-1 Martin Luther King, Jr.

Source: Reproduced courtesy of Prints & Photographs Division, Library of Congress [LC-USZ62-126559]. Photograph by Dick DeMarsico.

FIGURE 8-2 Adolf Hitler.

Source: Reproduced courtesy of Prints & Photographs Division, Library of Congress [LC-USZ62-48839].

It had been several years since the world war. With the war now over, people began looking for a national figure to solve social problems and injustices. Clearly, the country was divided and in need of change. Although many people of the nation were united and content with the status quo, he considered his people and nation to be downtrodden. He dreamed of a better place for his people and thought that his country could be greater than what it was. Slowly, over the years, millions listened and followed him. He inspired people like few before him had ever done. He was also successful in inspiring and motivating people, and accomplishing change. This change and his ability to motivate people were immense and dramatic, and can still be felt to this day. Modern scholars still study his methods and wonder how he did it. Years after his death, people still read his books and are moved by the memory of his dream.

Select one answer that best describes this narrative.

This is an example of

A. A national public figure.

B. A man with a vision.

C. Leadership.

D. Effective strategic management.

E. None of the above.

Table 8-1 Results of Leadership Quiz Based on Character Perception

Question Response

Hitler (n = 85)

King (n = 85)

A national public figure

34

9

A man with a vision

16

14

Leadership

9

62

Effective strategic management

14

0

None of the above

12

0

n = 170 military officers over the period 2004–2008

The results reveal that military officers were uncomfortable with the option of labeling Adolf Hitler as a leader. Only 9 of 85 students (10.5%) felt comfortable with the leader answer when they thought Adolf Hitler’s image was associated with the narrative and options. This was not true of the other half of the class, who selected “leader” 73% of the time (n = 62/85 students) when they assumed that Martin Luther King, Jr.’s picture was associated with the narrative and choices.

Clearly, this exploratory test on image perceptions of leadership with trained military officers in graduate school suggests a problem with perceptions associated with the leadership designation of historical figures. To overcome this dilemma, future leadership models must be capable of screening out despots and dictators from traditional leadership frameworks. The omnibus leadership model provides for this adjustment through its higher order, environment, and individual culture composite elements, thereby correcting the problem.

Constructs of the Omnibus Leadership Model

Traditional models of leadership focus on outcomes and trace those outcomes back to specific leadership traits, characteristics, or behaviors, with little emphasis placed on the values associated with intrinsic goal-directed behavior. The “nature versus nurture” debate has long existed within the study of leadership. Are leaders born, or can they be made? The environment certainly plays a role in fostering goal-directed behavior, as do family values, available resources, and education (including both didactic and spiritual education). Nevertheless, these constructs are often viewed as confounding variables rather than as leadership progenitors in traditional leadership models. This is a weakness within traditional leadership study.

Furthermore, traditional leader theories fail to fully integrate the various aspects of confounding variables into one multifaceted model that allows for a wider range and utility of leadership study. Specifically, constructs such as cultural distinctiveness, higher power influences, and environmental pressures are often disregarded as antecedent constructs for forecasting leader outcomes or explaining past leader behavior. At the same time, these constructs are excellent theoretical examples for forecasting leader outcomes under appropriate conditions.

For example, in the era of the War on Terror, some leaders and followers feel that they are driven to goal-directed behavior through a higher power mandate. Separate from the realm that is considered religion or spirituality in its common understanding, a “higher power” is often classified as a greater belief in a mantra, or distinctive icon, that guides and directs leader behavior and followership in a predictable manner. Rarely, however, does a discussion of how a higher power affects the values and goal-directed behavior of leaders take place. In fact, many leadership scholars completely ignore altogether the construct of a higher power influence when examining leadership. Some suggest it is politically incorrect to consider this factor, whereas others posit that it is too difficult to measure and evaluate it. Regardless, the study of a higher power influence on leadership is a burgeoning field of interest in the scholarly community. 35 - 37

As previously discussed, the preponderance of traditional leadership models focus on outcomes, using indicators of satisfaction and productivity as indices of success. In doing so, many established models fail to take into account various aspects of the environment and individual culture. Clearly, culture and the environment have profound effects on the study of leadership theory. As a result, an integrated theoretical model developed by Coppola 38 suggests a solution to this problem. The omnibus leadership model (OLM) borrows from previous literature in the field and provides a different aperture for evaluating leaders and leadership theory. This model offers three spatial dimensional constructs—higher order, individual culture, and environment—as signposts for other variables or constructs. Furthermore, from these spatial dimensions, three other constructs—beneficence, character traits, and resources—may be derived.

Higher Order Construct

Within the health and general management environment, the topic of spirituality in leadership is often considered taboo and, indeed, a career-ending conversation for executives and practitioners. Even so, it is well known that spiritual principles are the basis for many values and enduring beliefs that guide the ethical framework and moral development of health leadership practices in our society. Therefore, spirituality (i.e., higher order) as a construct of discussion and examination in health leadership practice should not be overlooked in future research examining leadership theory.

In 2008, a survey of religion performed by Baylor University 39 found that more than 85% of the U.S. population consider themselves to be “religious.” Furthermore, leadership research conducted by other authors suggests that the absence of the study of spirituality and/or a higher power in leadership study has been a distinct flaw in the traditional study of a leader’s ability to influence others and to inspire followership. End-of-life decisions and early pregnancy termination are only two of the issues faced by health executives today that have relevance to this construct; these issues have strong spiritual roots that influence and inform decision making. Obviously, the study of a higher power is necessary in health leadership. More importantly, it opens the conversation about spirituality in leadership and brings it to the table for a professional and intellectual discussion.

Higher-order principles guide the construct of beneficence, or the practice of “doing good” against the construct of malevolence, or the practice of “doing bad.” These principles are themselves derived from family values, spiritual teachings, education, “herd mentalities” in the community, and individual interpretation of the aforementioned spatial dimensions—whether they be consistent or inconsistent with practices or norms of behavior. Certainly, higher-order principles guide the development of many leaders, and this construct should not be overlooked in future leadership studies.

Individual Culture Construct

From the individual cultural spatial dimension, the construct of character traits may be derived. Trait theory itself dominated the bulk of traditional leadership methodology over the previous century, and little additional discussion seemed to have been warranted. Nevertheless, it is now clear that cultural distinctiveness acts as an immutable object in the study of leadership theory. Some Asian and Middle Eastern societies clearly favor gender in the practice of leadership hierarchy, whereas other societies are more gender neutral. Age is likewise a factor in many Asian societies and is often used as a proxy suggesting that experience equates with competence. As a result, it would be inappropriate to apply a transformational leadership model to the evaluation of some societies due to the hierarchal gender- and age-based traits associated with those cultures. For example, in traditional Chinese and North Korean cultures, inquisitiveness and outspokenness may be perceived in a negative light, as opposed to the Western perception that these behaviors demonstrate a search for understanding and an extroverted approach.

An individual’s birthplace culture, or the culture in which he or she lives, will imprint an endurable mark of distinctiveness on the individual that will follow him or her over the course of the person’s lifetime. Although not entirely immutable, the culture in which an individual is raised or lives will dominate and forecast choices in leader decisions for as long as the person is in charge of people, policy, or other decision-making elements.

Environment Construct

The environment in which many leaders operate is critically important to a leader’s success, as Fiedler suggested in his model decades ago. 40 The extent to which the literature has addressed the relationship between individuals and the environment is minimal. In fact, the preponderance of leadership theory ignores the environment altogether. Short of trait theory, very few studies attempt to tie traditional leadership theory to the environment in a manner that predicts and forecasts possible outcomes. In reality, by identifying the environment in which a leader will function, individuals can take advantage of factors in the environment to fit the current situation and maximize outcomes. This approach supports the multidimensional and complex idea that leadership processes include an ecologically valid two-way component between the leader and the environment 41 and that followers are embedded in the environmental context.

Leaders cannot execute their vision, inspire followership, and employ legitimate and charismatic attributes unless appropriate resources are available in the environment to assist in the communication of the leader’s message. If the environment lacks appropriate resources to assist in the transfer and the communication of the leader’s intent, the leader may not have a significant enough followership to lead anything. For this reason, the environmental construct is a necessary precursor to resource availability. Furthermore, leader recognition is not possible without appropriate resources to deliver the leader’s message.

Resources 42 have attracted a reasonable amount of attention in traditional leadership study; however, resources are generally viewed in older theories as variables unto themselves and not as constructs for measurement. In the OLM, resources may be accessed through both human followership and logistical means. For example, in the modern study of leadership, vehicles for message delivery have exponentially been available to small groups of individuals who may have been hermetically sealed from the preponderance of the world culture in the past. The advent of the Internet has allowed small fringe groups of previously marginalized peoples to gain standing and respect in the greater world community. Through a provocative website whose message inspires followership, a lone marginalized individual may find standing and prominence on the world stage. Clearly, environmental resources have gained prominence as vehicles for leadership followership.

The Omnibus Leadership Model: A Summary

The OLM meets the needs of future leadership researchers by including the spatial dimensions of higher order, individual culture, and environment. Table 8-2 provides a template for this model. Figure 8-3 illustrates the conceptual model of the omnibus leadership theory. The benefit of this theory derives from its ability to capture constructs that assist in explaining why certain leaders are driven to leadership decisions. For example, many leader decisions are based on values learned from childhood relating to cultural and spiritual teachings that can be acted upon in favorable environments. In understanding and applying this model, the foundations on which some leaders base their decisions becomes clear, as does why some leaders have widespread followership. In fact, followership based on cultural and higher-order issues cannot be overlooked in this modern era of the “War on Terror” and an increasingly globalized society.

Table 8-2 Omnibus Leadership Model

Spatial Dimension

Construct

Description

Variables

Higher order

Beneficence or malevolence

Altruism or sadism

Actions

· • Self-serving versus other-serving

· • Teamwork: glory “me” versus glory “we”

Individual (culture)

Character

Extraversion or introversion Type A or B personality archetypes

Traits, abilities, and skills

Environment

Resources Stability Turbidity Dynamic

Human followership and logistical availability

Outcomes

· • Action versus reaction

· • Flight versus fight

The OLM provides a framework for screening and evaluating real leaders from the despots and the infamous. For example, using this model as a guide, Hitler is clearly screened out of the leadership category due to his evil malevolence. His actions and outcomes resulted in sociopathic murder and do not qualify him as a leader of any sort in modern times. Likewise, their support of suicide bombers causes some modern-day figures to be similarly ruled out of leadership consideration because these acts are obviously nonbeneficent. 43 - 45

All leaders are guided by some higher-order principles that may present themselves as unconscious drivers for maintaining enduring beliefs and adopting certain values. Rokeach, in the values–beliefs–attitudes model, suggested that values form the bedrock of who we are as people and, consequently, as leaders. 46 However, without an understanding of the higher-order principles and values that guide a leader, it is not possible to fully understand retrospective actions, or forecast future behavior in a consistent manner.